If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Pastor Arrested - was going to burn Korans

Pastor Arrested for Open Carry by Oathbreakers (NOTE THE REDICULOUS FELONY CHARGE)

"Pastor Terry Jones arrested on his way to burn Korans in a barbecue 'in honor of 9/11 victims'
Pastor planned to burn 2,998 Korans at a park in Florida, one for every victim of the 9/11 attacks
Jones' Koran burning in 2011 instigated a violent protest in the Middle East at United Nations compound in Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan

By Associated Press

12 September 2013

Pastor Terry Jones was arrested on Wednesday as he drove a pickup truck towing a large barbecue-style grill filled with kerosene-soaked Korans to a park, where the pastor had said he was planning to burn 2,998 of the Muslim holy books - one for every victim of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Sheriff's deputies in Polk County, Florida, arrested Pastor Terry Jones, 61, and his associate pastor, Marvin Sapp Jr, 44, each on a felony charge of unlawful conveyance of fuel.

Jones had said he was heading to a nearby park in Mulberry to burn the Korans on Wednesday, the 12th anniversary of the attacks. Sheriff's officials said that Jones was also charged with unlawful open-carry of a firearm, a misdemeanor, and that Sapp faces a charge of having no valid registration for the trailer."

Inappropriate for inclusion on OCDO - title is seriously misleading as the pastor was neither OCing nor carry in any fashion.

Also uncalled for descriptor of law enforcement.

Locked it.

Correction:

The OP and link did indeed reference ttheir carrying , an astute reader/user of this forum has pointed out to me. I did some more digging and confirmed. However, it does not appear that either the pastor or his driver were charged with any gun violation.

“At about 4:25 we left to go to the park. As we pulled onto the main highway, several unmarked cars pulled up. They pulled us over. They asked both [the driver] and Dr. Jones to get out the truck, which they did. They asked if they were armed, which they legally were, they both had concealed weapons permits. They asked them to give up the weapons, which they did, then they handcuffed them and arrested them,” Sapp said.http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/11/pa...soaked-korans/

That not withstanding, the thread title of "Pastor Arrested for Open Carry by Oathbreakers" is still considered misleading and inflammatory.
Accordingly, editing the title and unlocking the thread.

Last edited by Grapeshot; 09-13-2013 at 04:38 AM.
Reason: correction

Better to not open your mouth and be thought the fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

Inappropriate for inclusion on OCDO - title is seriously misleading as the pastor was neither OCing nor carry in any fashion.

Also uncalled for descriptor of law enforcement.

That not withstanding, the thread title of "Pastor Arrested for Open Carry by Oathbreakers" is still considered misleading and inflammatory.
Accordingly, editing the title and unlocking the thread.

Grapeshot,

The article I posted which stated, “Sheriff's officials said that Jones was also charged with unlawful open-carry of a firearm, a misdemeanor,” was dated September 12th at 3:13 EST.

Whereas the article you posted that said, “They asked if they were armed, which they legally were, they both had concealed weapons permits. They asked them to give up the weapons,” was dated September 11th at 8:30 PM EST.

In other words, my information (that Jones was arrested) was MORE CURRENT than yours!

I don't know which is correct, but I'll assume that the most recent is the most accurate.

As for your editing the title:

"I was only following orders" has been heard in courts across the world as justification for various crimes, in war and peace, throughout history. It is a recurring problem both abroad and here on American soil. Most know of the National Socialists (Nazis), Japanese-American internment, My Lai, Abu Ghraib, the police who confiscated guns during the Katrina disaster, and more recently Canada’s Royal Mounted Police's seizing of guns during the flood in High River in Calgary.

In many of the above mentioned cases the law enforcement and/or military involved took an oath to defend the Constitution, and they violated their oaths by their actions. Each person who follows an illegal or unconstitutional order or law can and should be held to account for his decision to follow such an order. I believe that the Florida law which outlaws open carry is unconstitutional and shouldn't be followed by any person of authority.

Webster's dictionary defines an "oath" as "a solemn, usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says." I might therefore infer that an "oath keeper" sincerely intends to keep his word from the moment of an initial oath forward.

The sincere intent of any oath is contained within the words recited, as well as within the heart of the individual making the oath. To diverge from that specified intent would naturally put the person in the category of "oath breaker" rather than "oath keeper." I DON'T SEE THIS DESCRIPTOR AS BEING INFLAMMATORY.

But I do understand that you "reserve the right to edit or remove posts for any reason, at any time, at (your) sole discretion," so your opinion overrides mine. No problem with me - I just don't agree.

But I suppose if one researches the term "oath breaker" and realizes the historic meaning perhaps you were right in editing my words.

The term "oath breaker" has been around since Old English was spoken. The term used in those times was "waerloga," which also meant "damned soul," "wicked person," and even "Satan." Suffice to say, an oath breaker was about the worst thing one could be back in the day. Punishments for oath breaking were of the spearing, hacking, or crushing variety - decidedly unpleasant. Interestingly, the word waerloga is also the origin of the word "warlock" in use today. History had fitting names and biblical consequences for those who broke an oath to the Almighty. Such oaths have long since faded in value to mere formalities today.

When it comes to some of our Law Enforcement’s constitutional oaths, how many of them are acting less like oath keepers, and more like those ancient, oath-breaking "warlocks"? Given the unrelenting torrent of LEO blasphemies, the answer is clear, at least it is to me.